/2022 INSC 0105/
I N   THE  S UPREME  C OURT   OF  I NDIA   
C IVIL  A PPELLATE  J URISDICTION   
C IVIL  A PPEAL  N OS . 859­860  OF  2022   
( ARISING   OUT   OF  SLP (C) N OS . 13547­13548  OF  2021)
F UTURE  C OUPONS  P RIVATE  L IMITED  & O RS .         …A PPELLANT  ( S )
V ERSUS
A MAZON . COM  NV I NVESTMENT  H OLDINGS  LLC          …R ESPONDENT ( S )
& O RS . 
     W ITH
C IVIL  A PPEAL  N OS . 861­862  OF  2022   
(A RISING   OUT   OF  SLP (C) N OS .13556­13557  OF  2021)
F UTURE  R ETAILS  L IMITED                   …A PPELLANT ( S )
V ERSUS
A MAZON . COM  NV I NVESTMENT  H OLDINGS  LLC         …R ESPONDENT ( S )
& O RS . 
W ITH
C IVIL  A PPEAL  N O . 864  OF  2022   
(A RISING   OUT   OF  SLP (C) N O . 18089  OF  2021)
F UTURE  C OUPONS  P RIVATE  L IMITED  & O RS .          …A PPELLANT ( S )
V ERSUS
A MAZON . COM  NV I NVESTMENT  H OLDINGS  LLC         …R ESPONDENT ( S )
& O RS . 
1 R EPORTABLE

W ITH  
C IVIL  A PPEAL  N O . 863  OF  2022   
(A RISING   OUT   OF  SLP (C) N O . 18080  OF  2021)
F UTURE  R ETAIL  L TD .               …A PPELLANT ( S )
V ERSUS
A MAZON . COM  NV I NVESTMENT  H OLDINGS  LLC          …R ESPONDENT ( S )
& O RS . 
J  U   D   G   M   E   N   T   
N.V. R AMANA , CJI.   
1. Leave granted in all matters.
2. These  appeals  are  against   various  orders   of  Delhi   High   Court
connected to the Amazon­Future dispute. Civil Appeals arising
out of SLP (C) No. 13547­48 of 2021 and SLP (C) No. 13556­57
of   2021,   impugns   order   dated   02.02.2021   and   18.03.2021
passed   in   OMP   (ENF)   (Comm)   17   of   2021   and   Civil   Appeals
arising   out   of   SLP   (C)   Nos.   18089   and   18080   of   2021,   are
against   impugned   orders   dated   29.10.2021   passed   in   Arb.   A
(Comm.) No. 63 of 2021 and I.A. No. 14285 of 2021 in Arb. A
(Comm.) No. 64 of 2021 respectively. 
2

3. At   the   outset,   it   is   necessary   for   this   Court   to   have   a   brief
background   before   indulging   in   analyzing   the   issue   at   hand.
On 22.08.2019, Amazon entered into Shareholder  and Share­
Subscription   Agreements  with  Future  Coupon  Private  Limited
(FCPL).   Through   these   instruments,   Amazon   intended   to
acquire   49%   stake   in   FCPL.   The   aforesaid   agreements
contained   an   arbitration   agreement,   wherein   parties   resolved
to   settle   their   disputes   in   accordance   with   the   Arbitration
Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC).
The   parties   had   further   resolved   to   have   the   seats   at   New
Delhi.
4. On   12.08.2019,   FCPL   and   its   promoters   entered   into   a
Shareholder   Agreement   with   Future   Retail   Limited   (FRL).
Through this Agreement, FCPL was granted certain protective
rights. One such right is produced as under:
Clause 10 of SHA:
10 .    TRANSFER OF RETAIL ASSETS
10.1 As   of   the   Execution   Date,   the   Company   has
set   up   an   aggregate   of   at   least   1,534   (one
thousand five hundred and thirty four) retail
outlets/formats   including   without   limitation
the   Small   Store   formats   across   India   and
such retail outlets/stores are an integral part
3

of   the   business   conducted   by   the   Company
representing   a   significant   and   substantial
part   of   the   business   conducted   by   the
Company.     The   Existing   Shareholders   and
the   Company   further   agree,   covenant   and
undertake to FCL that the Company shall be
the   sole   vehicle   for   the   conduct   of   such
current business comprising of a widespread
network   of   the   retail   outlets/formats
including   without   limitation   the   Small   Store
formats   that   the   Company   has   established
and   is   operating   across   India   and
consequently   such   business   shall   continue
to   be   an   integral   part   of   the   Company’s
business.
10.2 Accordingly,   any   sale,   divestment,   transfer,
disposal, etc., of such retail outlets/ formats
including   without   limitation   the   Small   Store
Formats   shall   be   in   accordance   with   this
Agreement,   and   the   company   and   the
Existing   shareholders   covenant   and
undertake that during the subsistence of this
Agreement,   the   company   shall   not   transfer,
or   dispose   off   the   Retail   Assets   except   as
otherwise   mutually   agreed   between   the
Company,   the   Existing   Shareholders   and
FCL in writing.
10.3 Notwithstanding   anything   contained   herein,
the   Company   and   the   Existing   Shareholders
agree   that   the   Retail   Assets   shall   not   be
transferred,   Encumbered   divested,   or
disposed of, directly or indirectly, in favour of
a Restricted Person.
There is no dispute that one of the restricted persons included
the Reliance Group.
4

5. As   in   March   2020,   FRL   submitted   that   there   was   business
downturn   due   to   Covid­19   lockdowns   as   there   were
restrictions  on  retail   sale   through   brick­and­mortar   shops.   In
light   of   the   same,   the   Board   of   FRL   decided   to   sell,   retail
businesses   and   assets   to   Reliance,   for   a   consideration   in
excess   of   Rs.   25,000   crores.   Further,   it   is   contended   by   FRL
that   there   were   outstanding   loans   of   about   Rs.20,000   crores
with   a   serious   and   tangible   risk   of   becoming   insolvent.   It   is
submitted   that   it   was   in   this   context   that   the   subsequent
transaction   was   entered   into   to   alleviate   its   financial   position
and   protect   employment   of   around   25,000   employees   of   the
Future Group.
6. Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   sale   transaction,   Amazon   initiated
arbitration   proceedings   before   the   SIAC.   Amazon   filed   an
application for emergency relief with the Registrar of the SIAC
Court   of   Arbitration   seeking   interim   prohibitory   injunction   to
prevent   FRL   and   FCPL   from   taking   further   steps   in   the
aforesaid transaction with the Reliance Group. Parallelly, FRL
filed   a   suit   before   the   Delhi   High   Court   registered   as
CS(COMM)   No.   493   of   2020,   against   Amazon   for   tortious
interference in the Scheme for the sale of assets.
5

7. On   25.10.2020,   the   Emergency   Arbitrator   passed   an   Interim
Award   in   favor   of   Amazon.   It   may   be   noticed   that   the
Emergency   Arbitrator   and   the   Single   Bench   came   to
diametrically   opposite   conclusions   which   are   juxtaposed
herein below:­
Order   of   Emergency   Arbitrator
dated 25.10.2020 Order   of   Single   Judge   Bench
in   I.A.   No.   10376   of   2020   in
CS(COMM)   No.   493   of   2020
dated 21.12.2020
285. In   the   result,   I   award,   direct,
and order as follows:
(a) the   Respondents   are
injuncted   from   taking
any   steps   in  furtherance
or   in   aid   of   the   Board
Resolution   made   by   the
Board   of   Directors   or
FRL   on   29   August   2019
in   relation   to   the
Disputed   Transaction,
including but not limited
to   filing  or   pursuing   any
application   before   any
person,   including
regulatory   bodies   or
agencies   in   India,   or
requesting   for   approval
at any company meeting;
(b) the   Respondents   are
injuncted   from   taking
any   steps   to   complete
the   Disputed
Transaction with entities
that are part of the MDA 12.3     Thus   the   trinity   of   the
principles   for   grant   of   interim
injunction i.e. prima facie case,
irreparable loss and balance of
convenience are required to be
tested in terms of principles as
noted   above.    Since   this   Court
has   held   that   prima   facie   the
representation   of   Amazon
based   on   the   pea   that   the
resolution   dated   29 th
  August,
2020   of   FRL   is   void   and   that
on conflation  of  the FCPL SHA
and FRL SHA, the ‘control’ that
is   sought   to   be   asserted   by
Amazon   on   FRL   is   not
permitted under the FEMA FDI
Rules,   without   the
governmental   approvals,   this
Court finds that FRL has made
out   a   prima   facie   case   in   its
favour   for   grant   of   interim
injunction.   However, the main
tests in the present case are in
respect   of   “balance   of
6

Group;
(c) without   prejudice   to   the
rights   of   any   current
Promoter   Lenders,   the
Respondents   are
injuncted   from   directly
or   indirectly   taking   any
steps   to
transfer/dispose/alienat
e/encumber FRL’s Retail
Assets   or   the   shares
held   in   FRL   by   the
Promoters   in   any
manner   without   the
prior   written   consent   of
the Claimant;
(d) the   Respondents   are
injuncted   from   issuing
securities   of   FRL   or
obtaining/securing   any
financing,   directly   or
indirectly,   from   any
Restricted   Person   that
will   be   in   any   manner
contrary   to   Section
13.3.1 of the FCPL SHA;
(e) the   orders   in   (a)   to   (d)
above   are   to   take   effect
immediately   and   will
remain   in   place   until
further   order   from   the
Tribunal,   when
constituted; and
(f) the   Claimant   is   to
provide   within   7   days
from   the   date   hereof   a
cross­undertaking   in
damages   to   the
Respondents.     If   the
Parties   are   unable   to
agree   on   its   terms,   they convenience”   and   “irreparable
loss”.     Even   if   a   prima   facie
case is made out by FRL, the
balance   of   convenience   lies
both   in   favour   of   FRL   and
Amazon.    If the case of FRL is
that   the   representation   by
Amazon   to   the   statutory
authorities/regulators is based
on illegal premise, Amazon has
also   based   its   representation
on alleged breach of FCPL SHA
and   FRL   SHA,   as   also   the
directions   in   the   EA   order.
Hence   it   cannot   be   said   that
the balance of convenience lies
in   favour   of   FRL   and   not   in
favour of Amazon.   It would be
a   matter   of   trial   after   parties
have   led   their   evidence   or   if
decided   by   any   other
competent   forum   to   determine
whether   the   representation   of
Amazon   that   the   transaction
between   FRL   and   Reliance
being   in   breach   of   the   FCPL
SHA   and   FRL   SHA   would
outweigh the plea of FRL in the
present   suit.     Further   in   case
Amazon   is   not   permitted   to
represent   its   case   before   the
statutory
authorities/Regulators,   it   will
suffer   an   irreparable   loss   as
Amazon   also   claims   to   have
created preemptive rights in its
favour   in   case   the   Indian   law
permitted   in   future.     Further
there   may   not   be   irreparable
loss to FRL for the reason even
if   Amazon   makes   a
7

are   to   refer   their
differences to me  qua  EA
for resolution; and
(g) the   costs   of   this
Application   be   part   of
the   costs   of   this
Arbitration. representation   based   on
incorrect   facts   thereby   using
unlawful   means,   it   will   be   for
the   statutory
authorities/Regulators   to
apply   their   mind   to   the   facts
and   legal   issues   therein   and
come   to   the   right   conclusion.
There   is   yet   another   aspect
as   to   why   no   interim
injunction   can   be   granted   in
the   present   application   for
the   reason   both   FRL   and
Amazon   have   already   made
their   representations   and
counter   representations   to
the   statutory
authorities/regulators   and
now   it   is   for   the   Statutory
Authorities/Regulators   to
take   a   decision   thereon.
Therefore,   this   Court   finds
that   no   case   for   grant   of
interim   injunction   is   made
out in favour of the FRL and
against Amazon.
13. Consequently,   the
present application is disposed
of,   declining   the   grant   of
interim   injunction   as   prayed
for   by   FRL,   however,   the
Statutory
Authorities/Regulators   are
directed to take the decision on
the   applications/objections   in
accordance with law.
8

8. In   the   meanwhile,   CCI   and   SEBI   approved   the   composite
Scheme   proposed   by   FRL­Reliance.   Thereafter,   FRL   filed   for
sanction   of   the   composite   Scheme   of   arrangement   under   the
provisions of Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013
before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
 
9. Amazon   filed   a   Petition   for   enforcement   of   the   Emergency
Arbitrator   Award,   under   Section   17(2)   of   the   Arbitration   and
Conciliation   Act,   1996,   before   the   Delhi   High   Court   on
25.01.2021   and   the   same   was   heard   for   the   first   time   on
28.01.2021. As the  appellants  herein  challenge the  impugned
order   on   the   ground   of   failure   to   adhere   to   the   principles   of
natural justice, it is apt to reproduce certain procedural orders
passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   Justice   Midha,   in   OMP
(ENF)   (COMM)   No.17   of   2021.   On   28.01.2021,   the   following
order was passed:
“1. The   hearing   has   been   conducted
through video conference.
2. Arguments partly heard. 
3.  List   for   continuation   of   the   arguments
on   29th   January,   2021   at   the   end   of
the Board. 
4. The order be uploaded on the website of
this Court forthwith.”
On 29.01.2021, the following order was passed:
9

“1.  The   hearing   has   been   conducted   through
video conference.
2. Issue   notice.   Learned   counsels   for
respondents accept notice.
3.  Further arguments heard from 02:45 PM to
04:30 PM.
4. List   for   continuation   of   the   arguments   on
01st February, 2021. 
5. Both   the   parties   have   submitted   brief   note
of submissions. 
6. Learned   senior   counsel   for   the   respondent
No.2   submits   that   he   shall   file   additional
note   of   submissions   on   the   factual   aspect
by   tomorrow   afternoon   with   advance   copy
to   the   counsel   for   the   petitioner   by
tomorrow   evening.   Respondent   No.2   shall
also   respond   to   the   brief   note   of
submissions of the petitioner relating to the
facts. 
7.  The   order   be   uploaded   on   the   website   of
this Court forthwith.”
On 01.02.2021, the following order was passed:
“1. Respondent   No.2   has   filed   additional
submissions   to   which   the   petitioner   has
filed the response. 
2. Learned   senior   counsels   for   the
respondents   have   concluded   the   oral
arguments. 
3. List   for   rejoinder   submissions   of   the
petitioner on 02nd February, 2021. 
4. It   is   clarified   that   no   further   written
submissions   shall   be   filed   by   any   of   the
parties.”
10. On   02.02.2021,   the   first   substantive   order   [ 1 st
  impugned
Order ] was passed in the following manner:
10

“8.  This   Court   is   of   the   prima   facie   view   that
the   Emergency   Arbitrator   is   an   Arbitrator;   the
Emergency   Arbitrator   has   rightly   proceeded
against   the   respondent   No.2;   the   order   dated
25th   October,   2020   is   not   a   nullity;   the   order
dated   25th   October,   2020   is   an   order   under
Section   17(1)   of   the   Arbitration   and   Conciliation
Act. This Court is of the view that the order dated
25th   October,   2020   is   appealable   under   Section
37   of   the   Arbitration   and   Conciliation   Act.   This
Court   is   of   the   clear   view   that   the   order   dated
25th  October, 2020 is enforceable as an order  of
this   Court   under   Section   17(2)   of   the   Arbitration
and   Conciliation   Act.   The   detailed   reasons   shall
be given in the reserved order. 
9.  This   Court   is   satisfied   that   immediate
orders   are   necessary   to   protect   the   rights   of   the
petitioner   till   the   pronouncement   of   the   reserved
order. In that view of the matter, the respondents
are   directed   to   maintain   status   quo   as   on   today
at   04.50   P.M.   till   the   pronouncement   of   the
reserved   order.   The   respondents   are   directed   to
file   an   affidavit   to   place   on   record   the   actions
taken   by   them   after   25th   October,  2020   and   the
present   status   of   all   those   actions,   within   10
days. All the concerned authorities are directed to
maintain status quo with respect to all matters in
violation   of   the   order   dated   25th   October,   2020
and shall file the status report with respect to the
present   status   within   10   days   of   the   receipt   of
this   order.   The   other   prayers   of   the   petitioner
shall be considered in the reserved order. 
10.  Copy   of   this   order   be   given   dasti   under
signatures of the Court Master to counsels for the
parties.   Copy   of   this   order   be   also   given   dasti
under   signatures   of   the   Court   Master   to   Mr.
Kirtiman   Singh,   learned   Central   Government
Standing Counsel who shall send the same to all
the   concerned   authorities   dealing   with   the
actions   initiated   by   the   respondents   in   violation
of   the   order   dated   25th   October,   2020.   The
11

petitioner shall send the list of all the authorities
to   Mr.   Kirtiman   Singh,   learned   Central
Government   Standing   Counsel   within   three
days.”
11. Aggrieved   by   the   stay   order   granted   by   the   learned   Single
Judge,   while   reserving   the   matter,   FRL   filed   an   intra­court
appeal before the Division Bench in FAO OS (Comm.) No. 21 of
2021.   The   Division   Bench   vide   Order   dated   08.02.2021,
passed the following order:
“12. It is made clear  that  the observations made
in   this   order   are   only   a   prima   facie   view   for   the
purpose   of   grant   of   interim   relief   and   shall   not
come   in   the   way   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   in
passing   the   final   order   in   OMP(ENF)(Comm)
No.17/2021 and needless to state that the order
shall   be   passed   uninfluenced   by   any
observations made hereinabove.”
12. Amazon appealed against this Order before the Supreme Court
in SLP (C) No. 2856­57 of 2021.   Vide   order dated 22.02.2021,
this Court  inter­alia  held as under:
“ In   the   meantime,   the   NCLT   proceedings   will
be   allowed   to   go   on   but   will   not   culminate   in
any final order of sanction of scheme.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12

13. Again  on 18.03.2021, the  learned Single Judge in  OMP (ENF)
(COMM)  No.17   of  2021,   passed  the   2   nd
      impugned   order   with
aforesaid directions:
“188.   The   Emergency   Arbitrator   is   an   Arbitrator
for   all   intents   and   purposes;   order   of   the
Emergency   Arbitrator   is   an   order   under   Section
17(1)   and   enforceable   as   an   order   of   this   Court
under   Section   17(2)   of   the   Arbitration   and
Conciliation Act.
…………
190.     The respondents have raised a vague plea
of   Nullity   without   substantiating   the   same.     The
interim order of the Emergency Arbitrator is not a
Nullity  as alleged by respondent No.2.
191.  Combining/treating all the agreements as a
single  integrated  transaction  does  not   amount   to
control   of   the   petitioner   over   FRL   and   therefore,
the   petitioner ’ s   investment   does   not   violate   any
law. 
192. All the objections raised by the respondents
are hereby rejected with cost of Rs.20,00,000/­ to
be   deposited   by   the   respondents   with   the   Prime
Minister  Relief Fund for  being  used for   providing
COVID   vaccination   to   the   Below   Poverty   Line
(BPL) category ­ senior citizens of Delhi. The cost
be deposited within a period of two weeks and the
receipt   be   placed   on   record   within   one   week   of
the deposit. 
193.   The   respondents   have   deliberately   and
wilfully   violated   the   interim   order   dated   25th
October,   2020   and   are   liable   for   the
consequences   enumerated   in   Order   XXXIX   Rule
2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
194.   In   exercise   of   power   under   Order   XXXIX
Rule   2A(1)   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   the
assets   of   respondents   No.1   to   13   are   hereby
attached. Respondents No.1 to 13 are directed to
file   an   affidavit   of   their   assets   as   on   today   in
13

Form   16A,   Appendix   E   under   Order   XXI   Rule
41(2)   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   within   30
days. Respondent No.1, 2, 12 and 13 are directed
to   file   an   additional   affidavit   in   the   format   of
Annexure   B­1   and   respondents   No.3   to   11   are
directed   to   file   an   additional   affidavit   in   the
format   of   Annexure   A­1   to   the   judgment   of   M/s
Bhandari   Engineers   &   Builders   Pvt.   Ltd.   v.
M/s   Maharia   Raj   Joint   Venture ,   (supra)   along
with the documents mentioned therein within 30
days.”
14. In the  interregnum , the FCPL and FRL approached the Division
Bench  of  the   Delhi   High  Court  in  FAO  (OS)  (COM)  No.50  and
51   of   2021   respectively   against   the   2 nd
  impugned   order
passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   which   was   stayed   vide
Order dated 22.03.2021. 
15. Subsequently,   Amazon   filed   SLP   (C)   Nos.   6113­6114   of   2021
before   this   Court   against   the   order   dated   22.03.2021   passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court.
16. This Court consolidated all the appeals filed by Amazon before
this   Court,   heard   the   matters   together   and   passed   a   final
judgment dated 06.08.2021, answering  only the following  two
legal questions:
14

i.   Whether   an   Emergency   Arbitrator’s   Award   can   be
said to be within the contemplation of the Arbitration
Act?
ii.   Whether   an   order   passed   under   Section   17(2)   of
the   Arbitration   Act,   in   enforcement   proceedings,   is
appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act?
17. This   Court   answered   the   first   question   in   the   following
manner:
“41.     We, therefore, answer the first question by
declaring that full party autonomy is given by the
Arbitration   Act   to   have   a   dispute   decided   in
accordance   with   institutional   rules   which   can
include   Emergency   Arbitrators   delivering   interim
orders,   described   as   “awards”.   Such   orders   are
an important step in aid of decongesting the civil
courts   and   affording   expeditious   interim   relief   to
the  parties.  Such  orders are referable to  and  are
made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act.”
The second question was answered thus:
“76.  The second question posed is thus answered
declaring   that   no   appeal   lies   under   Section   37   of
the   Arbitration   Act   against   an   order   of
enforcement   of   an   Emergency   Arbitrator’s   order
made under  Section  17(2) of  the  Act. As a  result,
all interim orders of this Court stand vacated. The
impugned judgments of the Division Bench, dated
8th   February,   2021   and   22nd   March,   2021,   are
set   aside.   The   appeals   are   disposed   of
accordingly.”
18. It  may  be  noted  that   this  Court,  in  the  aforesaid  judgment  of
06.08.2021,   did   not   adjudicate   upon   the   merits   of   the   case
15

and   limited   its   reasoning   only   to   answer   the   legal   questions
which   arose   therein.   On   a   reading   of   this   judgment,   the
contention   of   the   learned   Senior   Advocate   Mr.   Gopal
Subramanium,   that   this   Court   has   upheld   the   Emergency
Arbitrator   Award   and   did   not   interfere   with   the   enforcement
orders in OMP (ENF)(Comm.) No. 17 of 2021, on merits, is not
correct. Although, the judgment narrates the facts leading up
to   the   appeal,   the   Court   neither   returned   any   findings   on
facts,   nor   adjudicated   on   merits   of   the   Order   passed   by
Justice   Midha   in   the   enforcement   proceedings.   It   is   this   gap
which   has   led   to   the   current   round   of   litigation   on   merits   of
the case for the second time before this Court.
19. In   the   meanwhile,   FRL   filed   an   application   under   Para   10   of
Schedule   1   of   the   SIAC   Rules   for   vacating   the   Award   of   the
Emergency   Arbitrator   before   the   Arbitral   Tribunal.   The   oral
submissions on the vacate petitions were heard between 12 th
­
16 th
 of July 2021 and orders were reserved.
20. Contemporaneously,   aggrieved   by   the   merits   of   the   orders   of
the Single Judge dated 02.02.2021 and 18.03.2021, FCPL and
FRL preferred appeals directly before this Court in SLP (C) No.
13547­48   of   2021   and   SLP   (C)   No.   13556­57   of   2021,
16

respectively.   On   09.09.2021   the   following   interim   order   was
passed by this Court:­
“Heard   learned   senior   counsel   for   the
parties   at   length   and   carefully   perused   the
material placed on record. 
Issue notice. 
Taking   into   consideration   the
submissions   advanced   by   the   learned   senior
counsel   for   the   parties   and   particularly   the
fact   that   the   parties   have   approached   the
Singapore International Arbitration Centre for
vacating   the   Emergency   Award   passed   by   the
Emergency   Arbitrator   and   the   arguments   in
the   said   matter   have   been   ssconcluded   and
the   order   is   going   to   be   pronounced   shortly,
we think it fit to balance the interest of both the
parties   by   staying   all   further   proceedings   before
the Delhi High Court for the time being. Ordered
accordingly.   We   further   direct   to   all   the
authorities   i.e.   NCLT,   CCI   and   SEBI   not   to
pass any final order for a period of four weeks
from   today.   This   order   has   been   passed   with
the consent of both the parties. 
List these matters after four weeks.”
( Emphasis supplied )
21. Thereafter, the applications filed by FRL and FCPL for vacating
the   award   of   the   Emergency   Arbitrator   was   dismissed   by   the
Arbitral Tribunal by Order dated 21.10.2021. 
22. The   aforesaid   order   of   the   Arbitral   Tribunal,   rejecting   the
vacate   petition,   was   challenged   by   FCPL   and   FRL   before   the
Delhi High Court in Arb. Pet. No. 63 of 2021 and Arb. Pet. No.
17

64 of  2021. In  Arb. Pet. No.  64  of 2021,  FRL had filed IA No.
14285/2021, seeking the following prayers:
a. Stay   the   operation   of   the   impugned   Order   dated
21.10.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal.
b. Alternatively,   pass   an   order   allowing   the   Appellant
to   take   steps   pursuing   the   scheme,   subject   to   the
condition   that   it   shall   not   invite   the   passing   of   any
final orders of approval of the scheme by the NCLT.
23. While   issuing   notice   in   both   matters,   by   orders   dated
29.10.2021   ( 3 rd
  impugned   Order ),   the   Delhi   High   Court
(Justice   Suresh   Kumar   Kait)   refused   any   immediate   relief   to
FRL in the following words:
“15.   During   the   course   of   hearing,   this   Court
time   and   again   referred   that   when   the   subject
matter   of   this   appeal   is   pending   sub­judice
before   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   Special
Leave   Petition   (Civil)   No.   13547­   48/2021   and
infact,   by   virtue   of   order   dated   09.09.2021
proceedings  before  this  Court  have  been   stayed
and   also   directions   have   been   passed   to   NCLT,
CCI, SEBI to not pass any final order, then how
interim   relief,   that   too   without   there­being   any
hearing   or   any   reply   from   side   opposite   on
record, application for interim stay can be heard
and   orders   be   passed.   Upon   this,   Mr.   Harish
Salve, learned senior counsel submitted in such
eventuality,   this   Court   may   dismiss   the
application.
16. In view of the above, the application seeking
interim stay being IA No. 14285/2021 (u/S 151
CPC) is accordingly dismissed.” 
18

24. Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   order,   FCPL   and   FRL   have
approached   this   Court   in   SLP   (C)   Nos.   18089   and   18080   of
2021 respectively.
25. Mr.   Harish   Salve,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   FRL
submitted that the orders in the enforcement proceedings have
been   rendered   while   completely   disregarding   the   order   dated
21.12.2020   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Delhi
High   Court   in   CS(Comm)   No.   493   of   2020,   particularly,   the
finding that FRL does not have any arbitration agreement with
the respondent. He further submitted that although an appeal
has been filed against the aforesaid order of the learned Single
Judge, there is no stay operating against the said order. 
26. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the impugned
orders   passed   in   the   enforcement   proceedings   merit   setting
aside as the said proceedings have been conducted contrary to
the   principles   of   natural   justice.   He   submitted   that   the
procedure   adopted   has   caused   serious   prejudice   to   the
appellants as, after denying them an opportunity to file a reply
affidavit, the impugned orders in the Enforcement proceedings
19

recorded   that   FRL   had   not   made   any   plea   on   the   issue   as   to
why were the orders of the Emergency Arbitrator a nullity. 
27. Thirdly,   the   learned   Senior   counsel   contended   that   the
impugned   orders   passed   in   the   Enforcement   proceedings
extended   beyond   the   scope   of   the   Emergency   Arbitrator’s
interim Award, by directing recall of the approvals granted by
the Statutory Authorities. 
28. Lastly,   while   relying   upon   the   Singapore   Arbitration   Rules,
learned   Senior   counsel   submitted   that   the   Tribunal’s   interim
order   dated   21.10.2021,   overrides   the   Emergency   Arbitrator’s
interim   Award   which   are   the   subject   matter   of   the   impugned
enforcement   proceedings.   As   a   result,   the   enforcement
proceedings and the impugned order have lost their relevance
due to the subsequent events.
29. Mr.   Mukul   Rohatgi,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for
FCPL   and   their   promoters,   while   supplementing   the
submissions   of   Mr.   Salve,   specifically   contended   that   the
impugned   order   merits   setting   aside   due   to   grave   injustice
caused   to   the   appellants   due   to   the   principles   of   natural
justice   being   given   a   go­by.   No   opportunity   was   granted   for
20

filing   of   any   response   which   has   resulted   in   various   factual
and   legal   errors   creeping   in   the   impugned   order.   He   further
submitted   that   considering   the   procedure   followed   by   it,   the
penal orders passed by the High Court in the impugned order,
merit a reconsideration. 
30. Learned   Senior   counsel   further   submitted   that   no   prejudice
would   be   caused   to   Amazon   by   setting   aside   the   impugned
order passed in the enforcement proceedings or by the passing
of   an   interim   measure   allowing   continuation   of   the
proceedings   before   the   NCLT.   In   fact,   this   Court,   vide   order
dated 22.02.2021, has already created an interim arrangement
by allowing the NCLT proceedings to continue with a direction
to   the   NCLT   not   to   pass   any   final   order.   On   the   other   hand,
the   impugned   order   dated   18.03.2021,   directed   recall   of   the
approvals granted by the statutory authorities.
31. Mr.   Gopal   Subramanium,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing
for   Amazon,   submitted   that   the   appellants,   by   their   conduct
have  demonstrated  willful and  intentional disobedience of  the
Emergency   Arbitrator’s   interim   Award,   after   agreeing   for   the
Emergency   Arbitrator.   While   he   fairly   stated   that   Amazon   is
21

not interested in pursuing  the punitive directions imposed on
FCPL   and   others,   he   submitted   that   the   Emergency
Arbitrator’s   interim   Award   stands   confirmed   by   the   Arbitral
Tribunal,   which   must   be   abided   by   the   appellants.   Learned
Counsel   argued   that   when   no   stay   has   been   granted   against
the   interim   protection   afforded   to   them   by   the   Arbitral
Tribunal, the appellants cannot operate in contravention of the
same   and   proceed   to   effectuate   the   scheme   before   the   NCLT.
He   lastly   submitted   that   pending   any   challenge,   the   interim
orders   passed   by   the   Tribunal   needs   to   be   maintained   and
given effect to, so as to uphold the effectiveness and sanctity of
the arbitration process.
32. Mr.   Aspi   Chinoy,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for
Amazon   contended   that   the   appellants’   reliance   on   the   order
dated   21.12.20,   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the
Delhi   High   Court   in   the   suit   proceeding   is   misplaced.   He
submitted that, in the first instance, the suit instituted by FRL
before   the   Delhi   High   Court   was   of   the   nature   of   an   anti­
arbitration   suit   and   a   collateral   challenge   to   the   arbitration
proceedings   which   is   in   contravention   to   Section   5   of   the
22

Arbitration   Act.   He   further   submitted   that   the   observations
being   relied   upon   by   the   appellants   were   made   in   an   order
declining   the   relief   sought   by   them   before   the   Delhi   High
Court.   Finally,   the   learned   Senior   counsel   submitted   that   no
relief should be granted to the appellants by this Court as they
have not approached this Court with clean hands having failed
to comply with any judicial order that has been passed.
33. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   both   the   parties   and   on
perusing   voluminous   documents   submitted   before   the   Court,
the following questions arise for our consideration :
I. Whether   the   orders   dated   02.02.2021   and   18.03.2021,
passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (ENF) (COM)
No.17 of 2021, are valid in law?
II. Whether   the   orders   dated   29.10.2021,   passed   by   the
learned Single Judge in Arb. A (Comm.) No. 64 and 63 of
2021, is valid in law?
Question No. I
34. The orders of the learned Single Judge [Justice Midha] in OMP
(ENF)  (COMM) No.17 of  2021, is impugned  on  the  grounds  of
lack   of   an   opportunity   granted   to   FCPL   and   FRL   to   file   a
23

counter to establish their defense. Mr. Rohatgi,  learned Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   FCPL   and   its   promoters   has
submitted   that   no   time   was   granted   by   the   learned   Single
Judge   to   respond.   He   added   that   a   200­page   order   has   been
passed   without   any   reply   being   filed   on   record   and   holding
everyone guilty of contempt of court. He has further submitted
that   punitive   directions   could   not   have   been   passed   even   in
contempt   jurisdiction   without   affording   the   party   a   proper
opportunity of filing a reply .
35. In   this   context,   our   attention   has   been   drawn   to   a   catena   of
procedural   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   OMP   (ENF)
(COMM) No.17 of 2021. From the record, we observe that FRL
and   FCPL   were   not   provided   sufficient   time   or   opportunity   to
file   their   counter   or   raise   their   defense.   On   29.01.2021,   they
were   allowed   to   file   a   brief   note   of   submission   within   twenty­
four hours, before orders were passed on 02.02.2021.
36. On   a   perusal   of   the   orders,   we   find   that   serious   procedural
errors   were   committed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge.   Natural
justice   is   an   important   facet   of   a   judicial   review.   Providing
effective natural justice to affected parties, before a decision is
taken, is necessary to maintain the Rule of law. Natural justice
24

is   usually   discussed   in   the   context   of   administrative   actions,
wherein procedural requirement of a fair hearing is read in to
ensure   that   no   injustice   is   caused.   When   it   comes   to   judicial
review, the natural justice principle is built into the rules and
procedures   of   the   Court,   which   are   expected   to   be   followed
meticulously   to   ensure   that   highest   standards   of   fairness   are
afforded to the parties.
37. It   is   well   known   that   natural   justice   is   the   sworn   enemy   of
unfairness.   It   is   expected   of   the   Courts   to   be   cautious   and
afford   a   reasonable   opportunity   to   parties,   especially   in
commercial   matters   having   a   serious   impact   on   the   economy
and   employment   of   thousands   of   people.   Coming   to   the   facts
herein, the opportunity  provided to the  appellants  herein  was
insufficient, and cannot be upheld in the eyes of law.
38. Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation
of the principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of
the case and fresh proceedings are left open. All that is done is
to   vacate   the   order   assailed   by   virtue   of   its   inherent   defect.
Such proceedings are not terminated and are usually remitted
back. [ See   Canara Bank v.  Debasis Das , (2003) 4 SCC  557]
However, in this case, much water has flown under the bridge,
25

since   the   passing   of   the   order   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,
which   has   now   been   rendered   redundant,   for   the   following
reasons :
 Initially,   this   Court   by   order   dated   22.02.2021,   had
allowed proceedings to continue before the NCLT without
finalization of the scheme.
 Thereafter,   learned   Single   Judge   passed   the   2 nd
impugned   order   on   18.03.2021,   without   considering   the
order of this Court dated 22.02.2021.
 Subsequently, the Division Bench in FAO (OS)(COM) No.
50 and 51 of 2021, had stayed the aforesaid order of the
Single   Judge,   which   was   taken   in   appeal   again   before
this Court. 
 This   Court   finally   disposed   of   the   case,   answering   only
two legal questions, without adjudicating on the merits of
the matter. 
 In the meanwhile, FRL and FCPL had moved the Arbitral
Tribunal,   for   vacating   the   interim   injunction   granted   by
the Emergency Arbitrator. 
 In   view   of   the   pendency   of   the   aforesaid   application
before   the   Arbitral   Tribunal,   this   Court   again   through
26

interim   order   dated   09.09.2021,   allowed   continuation   of
proceedings before the NCLT, without final authorization
on the scheme.
39. One aspect which may be highlighted is the punitive directions
ordered   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   the   order   dated
18.03.2021, which are extracted below:
“192.   All   the   objections   raised   by   the
respondents   are   hereby   rejected   with   cost   of
Rs.20,00,000/­   to   be   deposited   by   the
respondents   with   the   Prime   Minister   Relief
Fund   for   being   used   for   providing   COVID
vaccination   to   the   Below   Poverty   Line   (BPL)
category ­ senior citizens of Delhi. The cost be
deposited   within   a   period   of   two   weeks   and
the   receipt   be   placed   on   record   within   one
week of the deposit. 
193.   The   respondents   have   deliberately   and
wilfully violated the interim  order  dated 25th
October,   2020   and   are   liable   for   the
consequences   enumerated   in   Order   XXXIX
Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
194. In exercise of power under Order XXXIX
Rule   2A(1)   of   the   Code,   the   assets   of   the
respondents   No.1   to   13   are  hereby  attached.
Respondents   No.   1   to   13   are   directed   to   file
an   affidavit   of   their   assets   as   on   today   in
Form 16A, Appendix E under Order XXI Rule
41(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure within 30
days.   Respondent   No.   1,   2,   12   and   13     are
directed   to   file   an   additional   affidavit   in   the
format of Annexure B­1 and respondents no.
3   to   11   are   directed   to   file   an   additional
affidavit in the format of Annexure A­1 to the
judgment   of   M/s.   Bhandari   Engineers   &
Builders   Pvt.   Ltd .   v.   M/s.   Maharia   Raj
27

Joint   Venture ,   (supra)   along   with   the
documents   mentioned   therein   within   30
days.”
40. Our   attention   is   drawn   to   the   fact   that   the   learned   Single
Judge   had   relied   on   M/s.   Bhandari   Engineers   &   Builders
Pvt.   Ltd.   v.   M/s.   Maharia   Raj   Joint   Venture ,   2019   SCC
Online   Del.   11879,   which   has   been   overruled   by   a   Division
Bench order in  Delhi Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Himgiri Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,   EFA
(OS) (Comm.) No. 4 of 2021.
41. Viewed differently, contempt of a civil nature can be made out
under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   2­A   CPC   not   when   there   has   been
mere   “disobedience”,   but   only   when   there   has   been   “wilful
disobedience”.   The   allegation   of   wilful   disobedience   being   in
the   nature   of   criminal   liability,   the   same   has   to   be   proved   to
the   satisfaction   of   the   court   that   the   disobedience   was   not
mere   “disobedience”   but   “wilful”   and   “conscious”.   This   Court
in   the   case   of     Ram   Kishan   v.   Tarun   Bajaj ,   (2014)   16   SCC
204,   considering   the   implication   of   exercise   of   contempt
jurisdiction,   held   that   the   power   must   be   exercised   with
caution   rather   than   on   mere   probabilities.   While   delineating
28

the conduct which can be held to be “wilful disobedience”, this
Court held that:
“12.   Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it
has to be established that disobedience of the
order is “wilful”.  The word “wilful” introduces a
mental   element   and   hence,   requires   looking
into   the   mind   of   a   person/contemnor   by
gauging   his   actions,   which   is   an   indication   of
one's state of  mind. “Wilful”  means  knowingly
intentional,   conscious,   calculated   and
deliberate with full knowledge of consequences
flowing   therefrom.   It   excludes   casual,
accidental,   bona   fide   or   unintentional   acts   or
genuine   inability.   Wilful   acts   does   not
encompass   involuntarily   or   negligent   actions.
The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or
without   justifiable   excuse   or   stubbornly,
obstinately   or   perversely”.   Wilful   act   is   to   be
distinguished   from   an   act   done   carelessly,
thoughtlessly,   heedlessly   or   inadvertently.   It
does   not   include   any   act   done   negligently   or
involuntarily.   The   deliberate   conduct   of   a
person means that he knows what he is doing
and intends to do the same.   Therefore, there
has   to   be   a   calculated   action   with   evil
motive   on   his   part.   Even   if   there   is   a
disobedience   of   an   order,   but   such
disobedience   is   the   result   of   some
compelling   circumstances   under   which   it
was   not   possible   for   the   contemnor   to
comply   with   the   order,   the   contemnor
cannot   be   punished .   “Committal   or
sequestration   will   not   be   ordered   unless
contempt   involves   a   degree   of   default   or
misconduct.”  
(Emphasis supplied)
29

42. Considering   the   fact   that   in   the   suit   instituted   by   FRL,   the
learned   Single   Judge   had   earlier   allowed   FRL   and   Amazon   to
continue   their   pursuit   before   various   regulatory   authorities,
and   in   view   of   the   interim   orders   of   this   Court   dated
22.02.2021   and   09.09.2021,   and   the   Courts   below,   we   are
inclined   to   set­aside   aforesaid   directions   as   the   pre­condition
of   ‘sufficient   mental   element   for   wilful   disobedience’   is   not
satisfied.   Moreover,   Mr.   Gopal   Subramanium,   learned   Senior
Advocate appearing for Amazon, has fairly stated that Amazon
is   not   interested   in   proceeding   with   the   punitive   directions.
Taking   note   of   the   aforesaid   submission,   we   set   aside   the
punitive   directions   issued   in   the   impugned   orders   of   learned
Single Judge dated 02.02.2021 and 18.03.2021.
43. Coming  to  the  merits of  the  case, we  would  like  to  mention  a
disconcerting   aspect   wherein   the   interim   order   enforcing   the
Emergency Award has adopted a standard beyond ‘ prima facie
view ’,   as   required   under   law.   It   is   expected   of   Courts   to   be
cautious while making observations on the merits of the case,
which   would   inevitably   influence   the   Arbitral   Tribunals
hearing the matters on merit. 
30

44. Therefore,   we   set   aside   the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge
dated   02.02.2021   and   18.03.2021   passed   in   OMP   (ENF)
(COMM.) No.17 of 2021.
Question No. II
45. At   the   outset,   it   is   agreed   by   learned   advocates   appearing   on
both side that the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 in IA No.
14285/2021  moved  in   Arb.  A   (Comm.)  No.  64  of   2021,   needs
to   be   set   aside   for   non­consideration   of   the   orders   of   this
Court in the  proper  perspective. Our  order  dated 09.09.2021,
imposed   no   bar   on   the   High   Court   to   adjudicate   the   issue
concerning     legality   of   the   vacate   application   order   by   the
Arbitral   Tribunal.   In   our   opinion,   adjudication   of   the
applications   under   Section   37(2),   Arbitration   Act   filed   by   the
appellants   before   the   Delhi   High   Court   are   distinct   from   the
earlier appeals filed before this Court. 
46. Further,   certain   important   questions   of   law   concerning   the
effect   of   the   award   of   an   Emergency   Arbitrator   and   the
jurisdiction   of   an   Arbitral   Tribunal   qua   such   awards   arise   in
the   present   matter.   Therefore,   these   matters   need   to   be
remitted back for adjudication on its own merits.
47. In view of the above, we order:
31

I. Setting   aside   of   impugned   orders   dated   02.02.2021   (1 st
impugned Order) and 18.03.2021 (2 nd
 impugned order) in
OMP (ENF)(Comm.) No. 17 of 2021.
II. Setting   aside  of  3 rd
  impugned  order   dated 29.10.2021  in
Arb.   A.   (Comm.)   No.   64   and   63   of   2021.The   learned
Single   Judge   shall   reconsider   the   issues   and   pass
appropriate   orders   on   its   own   merits,   uninfluenced   by
any observation made herein.
  
...........................................CJI.
                                                                                                                      (N.V. RAMANA)
                                                                 ..............................................J.
                        (A.S. BOPANNA)
..............................................J.
                        (HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 01, 2022
32